Destroy the U.S. government to solve economic crises?

[Genecks]

I've been thinking as of late about what it would mean if Americans or simply the lowly educated class with talent were to rise against the US government and officials and simply send them to their graves.

 

I considered this fact because of the silliness of war spending and other spending that goes on.

As such, if America wants a war, then how about the angered Americans start war with those who spend massive amounts of money on trivial things.

I believe the educated class with talent could definitely start problems for U.S. officials and start a very technological war with them.

Afterward, the war money would be put back into America to solve the war in the country. Problem solved. Start war with your own country.

A civil war, really.

 

The problem with that, seems that every country wants to disable some other country from having a civil war, preventing some kind of forced neo-isolationism from occurring.

As such, they take their troops and send them to some place out of their geographical politics.

 

Sure, it'd be bloody. But it would obviously stop the ridiculous war spending.

There is no need to spend money on some ridiculous war in some country that is not ours.

 

People say, "Violence isn't the answer."

Yeah, well, how are you going to change the mind of assholes?

Really? Those people who ruin the economy want to be selfish jerks.

They are not interested in reason, and they obviously don't show it.

[tomgwyther]

Maybe not an all-out war, but a few carefully targeted hits.

On a slightly different note, and at the risk of controversy: I sometime wonder would the reaction would have been if the 9/11 hijackers had ignored New York and instead hit the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Are you sure that replacing war spending with civil war is an acceptable tradeoff, considering the resulting impact on the US economy?

 

One would be recovering war money from foreign countries by forcing the government to spend it to fight against its own citizens.

[Moontanman]

Genecks, you are starting to sound like John Titor....

[Genecks]

Nice point, Moontanman. I agree.

 

But I understand that in the past that people have had civil wars when countries became out of control.

Generally, the rebels were put down pretty quickly.

 

The way I keep seeing the evolution of this economic problem is that the American government keeps trying to put the general public on lock down in order to further increase death grip on the lower class.

 

Eventually, there will be that serious divide of low and higher classes with an almost obsolete middle class.

 

So, I really do think a civil war would be useful right about now.

The problem is that it's going to be bloody.

 

Otherwise, no wars and economic instability just means those with more power and money get their way.

If people want to not have wars, then there is going to be oppression.

 

The way I forsee all of this is that down the line, there will probably be another world war in the next 100 years.

More than likely not in the next 60 years, but definitely another one. A war for resources.

By that time, the general American population will be too poor and stupid to do anything.

 

I think it would be an acceptable trade-off.

Because the threat of a civil war ought to be enough to have the government stop this trivial spending.

It's as though there isn't a mechanism to prevent this spending issue. Things are out of balance.

There are few consequences for those who misappropriate funds.

 

I assume the balance would have to be maintained by the general public.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Genecks

[Incendia]

People say, "Violence isn't the answer."

Yeah, well, how are you going to change the mind of assholes?

Really? Those people who ruin the economy want to be selfish jerks.

They are not interested in reason, and they obviously don't show it.

 

Well Americans do elect their politicians in the first place, it's their fault that those terrible politicians are in power. You don't have to change their minds - elect someone who isn't a terrible politician.

[kitkat]

Maybe not an all-out war, but a few carefully targeted hits.

On a slightly different note, and at the risk of controversy: I sometime wonder would the reaction would have been if the 9/11 hijackers had ignored New York and instead hit the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

 

Now that is an entertaining thought!

 

Well Americans do elect their politicians in the first place, it's their fault that those terrible politicians are in power. You don't have to change their minds - elect someone who isn't a terrible politician.

 

 

Can you name one that is not terrible?